Regular physical activity is an essential component of a healthy lifestyle and, alternatively, lack of physical activity is a risk factor that is linked to a variety of non-communicable diseases (1). Consequently, increased physical activity is associated with reducing the overall disease burden. Numerous approaches to increasing physical activity are available and generally accepted including both specialized interventions targeted at specific high-risk groups, and population approaches that aim to increase the physical activity level for the whole population. There is contention in the field concerning which approach is most appropriate for future public health initiatives. The following is a brief discussion of the two theories of public …show more content…
Rose suggests that the benefits of a high-risk approach are that it gives the capability to produce tailored interventions that are specific to that individual and may be more personally motivating both for the patient and for the health care community. High-risk intervention leads to an impressive change in a couple that is inspiring and motivational for health care professionals and the individual attention and the large personal change leads to motivation on the part of the patient. Alternatively, a population approach results in small changes among all the population. However, Rose argues that this distribution of small benefit among many is appropriate because often more people develop a disease from a large pool of people at lower risk than the comparatively small number of individuals who develop disease that stem from a small pool of high risk individuals. In addition, risk management of the intervention is easier in high risk approach because it can be more easily controlled, compared to population approaches in which repercussions are more difficult to predict and measure. However, Rose emphasizes that if disease is caused by a lifestyle factor, in this case inactivity, and systemic within a society, then the high-risk approaches miss the underlying contributor of risk and therefore is a short lived/ fleeting intervention. …show more content…
The negative impact on social equality may be greater in population approaches due to the lack of individual support and resources that are provided during a high-risk approach. And positively changing behaviour after prompting from a population level change is easier for those who occupy higher socioeconomic positions and may further harm those who occupy lower socioeconomic positions. Some suggest that population interventions exacerbate inequality, however, respondents have argued in defence of Rose’s population approach(5). Respondents stress the nature and type of population approach are important when considering the resulting potential for health inequalities. A radical change to structural causes of inactivity if given enough time are likely to diffuse into all member of the population and over time will mitigate or avoid difficulties experienced by those in a low socioeconomic